Clarke continued to take interviews through 2007. On his 90th birthday in December 2007, he bid his friends and family farewall in a recorded video message. (Source: AP)

The world loses its largest advocate for science and science fiction today

I was extremely disappointed to hear this morning that Arthur C. Clarke passed away today at the age of 90. How many of us felt something special, or at least incredibly different, the first time we saw 2001: A Space Odessy, or the first time Endeavour opened the hatch of the cylindrical world of Rama?

It was only so often that a single writer could influence the course of humanity in so many ways. His essays and novels touched on topics that will stay with humanity for generations still. Clarke is recognized with his own orbit distinction -- Clarke Orbit, 36,000 kilometers above Earth -- for his work on geosynchronous communication satellites.

In his time Clarke penned more than 100 short stories, novels, non-fiction exposes and philosophical essays.

It's unfortunate that Clarke's pinnacle prediction, the space elevator detailed in The Fountains of Paradise, was not a technical possibility by the time of his death. For my generation, the space elevator will be as much of a certainty as the communications satellite of Clarke's generation.

Clarke's mastery of the unknown, really an exercise of what he thought was the most logical proposition, kept him writing well into his 80s. For his work he was knighted in 2000.

After contracting polio in his adopted home of Sri Lanka, Clarke made it his personal duty to get the local government involved in science and technology. In 2005 he was honored with the Sri Lankabhimanya, the highest civilian award in the country.

A relatively obscure quote from Clarke near the end of his days quickly became my favorite after it was appropriately published in 2001:

"I don't pretend we have all the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about..."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I think something does need to be said here. I grew up on the Arthur C. Clarkes and Carl Sagans. These two individuals, in particular, were ardent advocates of science and science fiction -- dying personalities in Western culture.

The Pew Research Center announced yesterday that for every 5 hour block of cable news programming in the U.S., there's approximately one minute of science programming. Clarke probably didn't see the report before he passed on, but this was one of the things he would have petitioned to fix if he had the years still.

A culture that grew up on Star Trek and 2001: A Space Odyssey cares more about Britney Spear's hairstyle than a several billion dollar observation station heading to Venus. Clarke spent his entire life (he gave interviews on his 90th birthday in December) inspiring people like me to do something about it.

I owe a large part of what DailyTech is today to what Clarke said in regard to these trappings in the 80s and 90s. So yes I was extremely disappointed to hear he passed on.

quote: but I hardly consider DailyTech to be a creative force in science fiction let alone carrying on any legacy. Are you going for brownie points?

Science Fiction like most art forms tends to use what is real as a muse (and vice versa). The reporting of what is happening today, lets us dream about what could happen tomorrow. So, indirectly, I am sure that Daily Tech and other tech news sites have earn their share of inspirational "Brownie Points."

quote: Science Fiction like most art forms tends to use what is real as a muse

That's precisely what's wrong with science fiction these days. Science fiction used to be more imaginative. Now, it looks too much to science. How much science did Jules Verne need to create 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? He had a vision, and the science and submarine came after. Now, sci-fi writers wait for the science and then try to have a vision how it would work. It's definitely an inferior system.

> "Science fiction used to be more imaginative. Now, it looks too much to science"

Eh? It's just the other way around. Authors like the "Big 3" had a firm grounding in science, and it showed in their writing. Asimov was a Professor of Biochemistry, Clarke had degrees in Math and Physics, and Heinlein....well he once spent three days working out heat loss equations by hand (no computers back in those days) just to ensure a scene was plausible...and that was just in a book he was writing for teenagers, not even one of his adult works.

I read most of that stuff in my teens. The last sci-fi books I read were 1984, and Zamayatin's We. I guess the draws for me for sci-fi were HG Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs (entire Barsoom, Venus, and Tarzan works - I know Tarzan wasn't sci-fi, but I thought I'd throw it in), Clarke (earlier work), Heinlein, Asimov, Keith Laumer, Piers Anthony, endless Star Trek novels, amongst others I've forgotten.

You're right that these artist had a background in science. However, I don't agree that they were limited by their scientific backgrounds. Of course, I'm pretty much out of touch with contemporary work since the late 80s when I realized all the good work was already printed. However, I now know that time is an excellent filter for working all the junk out of the system. I really should give William Gibson another shot. Neuromancer was actually decent.

quote: I grew up on the Arthur C. Clarkes and Carl Sagans. These two individuals, in particular, were ardent advocates of science and science fiction -- dying personalities in Western culture

I think that's the part that's missing today. These were the authors that were big in their time. How many scientists, engineers, astronomers, astronauts, etc. grew up reading these authors and their kin and went into these fields so they could play in one of those SF worlds they read about (like me). Asimov's robots were a prime force in my desire to take up engineering.

Now all the kids want to do is go to Hogwarts. I think the best we can hope for is a bunch of chemists who want to create some cool "potion" when they grow up.

I wish we could re-inspire humanity's imagination. This is no longer the progressive movements of the fifties and sixties (even seventies with the Voyager program) where people started to look up and beyond our own petty Earth. How far we have fallen to come back to our ridiculous self-centered lifestyles enjoying celebrity drama and stupid singing competitions. I find thought experiments looking for solutions to benefit our children and grandchildren to be MUCH more rewarding and entertaining than American Idol or Entertainment Tonight. But I do suppose that even we sometimes need the occasional break from Discovery and the Science Channel, et cetera. But certainly not five hours per every one minute. Again, I breathe a sigh of sadness and disappointment.